Page 23 of 121 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 1210

Thread: What exactly is the Word of God?

  1. #221
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Amishland PA
    Posts
    9,155
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LynnCF View Post
    The translators made the word Christ possessive by adding the Ďs. Paul does not make it possessive but singular. IOW we are not Christís (possessive) we are Christ (singular).
    Lynn, then how can you explain the fact that χριστου (Christ) is in the genitive case? Whatever your inner guidance told you, it doesn't know or understand the Greek language. The phrase would be heard by one speaking the language back then as saying, "... that he is OF Christ..." and that's where YOU get into trouble. You arrive at conclusions that could not possibly be derived from the initial language.

    And no, a PhD would not understand what YOU think was written here, because he or she would know the language, and that your meaning isn't what was written.

    Yehushuan
    Watch Out !! Christians are so into human sacrifice they slay their own wounded.

    Current ignore list: JimD, De Maria, Agape, jmldn2, smoky

  2. #222
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Amishland PA
    Posts
    9,155
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightbearer View Post
    Let's have a looksee Yehushuan for everyone....
    Took you long enough, but this is a perfect example why merely mastering a Lexicon does not make one a linguist (or a translator).

    CONTEXT my friend. CONTEXT. With regards to the specific example of the accounts of Paul's epiphany, it would be insane to change the meaning of one word into a radically different context when the EXACT same word is describing the EXACT same event. If you accept that the remote definition of "understand" is to be applied to this SPECIFIC event, then honesty and integrity demands that it must mean "understand" in BOTH passages. Else, one creates a contextual artifact and purposefully twists the meaning. Then one can make whatever words are written into whatever one wants them to say. So I have no problem if one wants to say that in the first account the men with Paul understood the voice, but in the second passage Paul says they did not understand.

    However, yes, I think the Lexicons are wrong here, and their examples (if you read the extractions) are best understood by the aktionsart of "accepting" or "embracing" NOT Mental Cognition.

    The declarative HEAR MY WORDS. Has nothing to do with cognition. It has EVERYTHING to do with acceptance. As I said before, the American usage of the word "listen" is better applied here. When a parent says, "Listen to me," he or she is talking about obedience, lightbearer, not comprehension.

    Seriously.

    Yehushuan
    Watch Out !! Christians are so into human sacrifice they slay their own wounded.

    Current ignore list: JimD, De Maria, Agape, jmldn2, smoky

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Amishland PA
    Posts
    9,155
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    Neh. That was simply fighting fire with fire. You twisted my words when you claimed I hadn't read any of Erlman's book.


    I see the concept of a stated question is something with which you are unfamiliar. So yes... trouble with English...

    De Maria, for whatever the risk of you drooling in giddish glee... I'll take you off ignore once you establish yourself as someone with a higher education.
    Watch Out !! Christians are so into human sacrifice they slay their own wounded.

    Current ignore list: JimD, De Maria, Agape, jmldn2, smoky

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yehushuan View Post
    Lynn, then how can you explain the fact that χριστου (Christ) is in the genitive case? Whatever your inner guidance told you, it doesn't know or understand the Greek language. The phrase would be heard by one speaking the language back then as saying, "... that he is OF Christ..." and that's where YOU get into trouble. You arrive at conclusions that could not possibly be derived from the initial language.

    And no, a PhD would not understand what YOU think was written here, because he or she would know the language, and that your meaning isn't what was written.

    Yehushuan

    You didn't understand it did you? that was the point in my putting it there... Now tell me what you believe that verse was saying and we might be getting somewhere... I explained completely what it was saying to me... but you never do that... you waffle around and never really say much when something like that is presented to you...

    What does Christ mean to you? What I"m saying is Christ's would mean one thing and Christ would mean something...And that is another example of the strong delusion God said He would send...
    So you see, it's not really an error, yet it's all the word of God... of course I realize the word of God is certainly not limited to what's written in the bible at all...that is just one small part of the word of God....It's far more important to understand when the word of God we hear and or read applies to us or not....Just because something applies to you or someone else, is no sign it applies to everyone else...

    Now if you line this up with what Paul said here it makes far more sense that the "s" was added by the translators....
    Romans 8:9-10 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

  5. #225
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Amishland PA
    Posts
    9,155
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LynnCF View Post
    You didn't understand it did you? that was the point in my putting it there....
    Lynn, the only strong delusion I see at this point was you declaring that the word "Christ's" was mistranslated and the KJV wrongfully added in the apostrophe "S". In the Greek text the word "Christ" was written in the genitive case which most often means "possessive". The "apostrophe s" IS in the intial Greek texts.

    Quote Originally Posted by LynnCF View Post
    That reminded me of another scripture that really should go in another thread but being as I'm here and it does sort of fit in with God's Word, I'll present it to you just for kicks...

    2 Cor 10:7 Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

    The translators made the word Christ possessive by adding the Ďs. Paul does not make it possessive but singular. IOW we are not Christís (possessive) we are Christ (singular).
    Again, since the word "Christ" was written χριστου it IS in the possessive case. Since there is no evidence to support the idea that Paul didn't write this text, Paul DID make it possessive by writing χριστου (Christou). When Christ is the subject in a sentence it is written Christos. Were Paul to have meant (IN 2 Cor 10:7) what you believe, then he would have written Christon, using the Accusative case.

    Quote Originally Posted by LynnCF View Post
    I explained completely what it was saying to me...
    And I explained completely why your understanding is wrong. Just where did you "hear" that "the translators MADE the word Christ possessive"? I think this is more to the point. Was this your thinking? Or did God put that thought in your mind?

    Quote Originally Posted by LynnCF View Post
    ... but you never do that... you waffle around and never really say much when something like that is presented to you...
    Fair enough that I never gave any explanation of what that verse means to me, because I didn't want to derail the thread. But I hardly waffled around. I showed that your assertion that "the translators changed the word into a possessive" was wrong. It was written in the originals AS a possessive to begin with. If words carry true meaning, then one can not just willy-nilly go around changing them and then accusing others of doing so when they clearly didn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by LynnCF View Post
    Now if you line this up with what Paul said here it makes far more sense that the "s" was added by the translators....
    Then say a scribe changed the letters somewhere in 2 Cor 10:7 from Christon to Christou (although there is no evidence whatsoever for this that I know of). But THERE WAS NO "S" ADDED BY TRANSLATORS. In the Greek manuscripts that we have, both the Textus Receptus and the Wescott Hort have the word "Christ" written in the genitive case, meaning "Christ's". The apostrophe s IS in the original, it was not added.

    Yehu
    Watch Out !! Christians are so into human sacrifice they slay their own wounded.

    Current ignore list: JimD, De Maria, Agape, jmldn2, smoky

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yehushuan View Post
    Lynn, the only strong delusion I see at this point was you declaring that the word "Christ's" was mistranslated and the KJV wrongfully added in the apostrophe "S". In the Greek text the word "Christ" was written in the genitive case which most often means "possessive". The "apostrophe s" IS in the intial Greek texts.

    Again, since the word "Christ" was written χριστου it IS in the possessive case. Since there is no evidence to support the idea that Paul didn't write this text, Paul DID make it possessive by writing χριστου (Christou). When Christ is the subject in a sentence it is written Christos. Were Paul to have meant (IN 2 Cor 10:7) what you believe, then he would have written Christon, using the Accusative case.

    And I explained completely why your understanding is wrong. Just where did you "hear" that "the translators MADE the word Christ possessive"? I think this is more to the point. Was this your thinking? Or did God put that thought in your mind?

    Fair enough that I never gave any explanation of what that verse means to me, because I didn't want to derail the thread. But I hardly waffled around. I showed that your assertion that "the translators changed the word into a possessive" was wrong. It was written in the originals AS a possessive to begin with. If words carry true meaning, then one can not just willy-nilly go around changing them and then accusing others of doing so when they clearly didn't.

    Then say a scribe changed the letters somewhere in 2 Cor 10:7 from Christon to Christou (although there is no evidence whatsoever for this that I know of). But THERE WAS NO "S" ADDED BY TRANSLATORS. In the Greek manuscripts that we have, both the Textus Receptus and the Wescott Hort have the word "Christ" written in the genitive case, meaning "Christ's". The apostrophe s IS in the original, it was not added.

    Yehu

    oK, so what this has all boiled down to is this, when you want the KJV to be wrong you will find any possible way you can to prove it wrong...But if I say, the translators added the 's to that verse in the KJV, and even giving you scripture to show the context of why I say they added the 's, you will try to prove with every fiber of your being that in that particular instance the translators were correct....

    And the end result was still the same...you waffled when it came to giving the meaning of the scripture... because you do not understand what is being said.... and that is my whole point with our original discussion here of the men hearing the word, but not understanding what is being said....

    You do sort of half way make my day though...normally I find it extremely difficult to find humor in just about anything but in this case I actually L'dOL.... Lynn

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,897
    Blog Entries
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yehushuan View Post
    I see the concept of a stated question is something with which you are unfamiliar. So yes... trouble with English...
    Your admission to having trouble with English is unnecessary. I had already noted the problem and many have mentioned your communication problem.

    De Maria, for whatever the risk of you drooling in giddish glee... I'll take you off ignore once you establish yourself as someone with a higher education.
    Any education is higher than yours. So, I don't know why you're troubled.

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,897
    Blog Entries
    68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yehushuan View Post
    Lynn, then how can you explain the fact that χριστου (Christ) is in the genitive case?
    The genitive case means "possessive". That is what the 's denotes.

    In grammar, genitive (abbreviated gen; also called the possessive case or second case) is the grammatical case that marks a noun as modifying another noun. It often marks a noun as being the possessor of another noun.

    Whatever your inner guidance told you, it doesn't know or understand the Greek language. The phrase would be heard by one speaking the language back then as saying, "... that he is OF Christ..." and that's where YOU get into trouble. You arrive at conclusions that could not possibly be derived from the initial language.
    Why not? OF CHRIST means belongs to Christ. This is confirmed even in translations to other languages. So, why should it be different here? Because you say so?

    Here is the context:

    2 Corinthians 10:7 Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? if any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

    And no, a PhD would not understand what YOU think was written here, because he or she would know the language, and that your meaning isn't what was written.
    Everyone understands what Lynne is saying. It is you who has dreamed up another whopper which contradicts the Word of God.

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Amishland PA
    Posts
    9,155
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LynnCF View Post
    oK, so what this has all boiled down to is this, when you want the KJV to be wrong you will find any possible way you can to prove it wrong...
    Of course not. I read the intial texts. If a translation is correct it is correct. If it is wrong, it is wrong. And I provide my reasons why.

    Quote Originally Posted by LynnCF View Post
    But if I say, the translators added the 's to that verse in the KJV,
    If YOU say such, then you just show that you have no clue. And people should know this. The claim that translators added an apostrophe 's' is bald faced lie. (And I rarely use that word.)

    So did GOD tell you wrong? One would think God would know the Greek language in which it had been written. I think we all know by now that these are your harebrained ideas, not thoughts that God puts in your head. God would not mislead you. Regardless of what one makes of it, Paul wrote "Christ's" with the apostrophe s. But you really don't care what's actually written.

    Laugh on...

    (You're only making a fool of yourself.)
    Watch Out !! Christians are so into human sacrifice they slay their own wounded.

    Current ignore list: JimD, De Maria, Agape, jmldn2, smoky

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Amishland PA
    Posts
    9,155
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by De Maria View Post
    Everyone understands what Lynne is saying. It is you who has dreamed up another whopper which contradicts the Word of God.
    God knows what you're smoking, dude.

    You'd better read the posts again, because you're making yourself look like fool too. So... yes... (you have) trouble with English.


    HEY... anyone out there care enough about De Maria to knock some sense into his head here?

    (Thought so.)
    Watch Out !! Christians are so into human sacrifice they slay their own wounded.

    Current ignore list: JimD, De Maria, Agape, jmldn2, smoky

Page 23 of 121 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •